Samples Obtained Without Incident

Samples Obtained From Prisoner

Blood, Hair Taken Without Incident

NEW HAVEN — When murder suspect Melvin Jones refused last fall to give authorities a sample of his saliva, blood and hair, a Superior Court judge said Jones had no other choice.

One way or another, authorities would draw Jones' blood -- even if it required force, Judge Francis R. Quinn ruled.

Wednesday morning, in the medical unit of the Whalley Avenue jail, Jones took his place in a chair equipped with nylon straps. A nurse then plucked hairs from his head and arms, and drained a small tube of blood from his veins.

In the event that Jones resisted, a team of state inspectors stood beside him.

"I had no intention of giving anyone any blood," Jones said. "But I realized that I did not want to go to the extent of violence, and physically attacking them, and risking the possibility of hurting somebody."

The procedure went smoothly, but it raised questions about how far the state can go in gathering evidence and a defendant's right to refuse such bodily intrusions.

Assistant State's Attorney James Clark had asked for the samples to prove that Jones was in a car connected to an October 1990 drug-related murder in New Haven. Clark intends to have DNA tests done on the hair and blood to compare the results with samples found in the car, according to a court brief.

Jones, who was convicted in the mid-1970s of fatally shooting a Yale student in a street holdup, faces the death penalty if convicted in the 1990 shooting. He has maintained his innocence, and is representing himself. Brian S. Carlow and Susan O. Storey were appointed as his stand-in counsel to advise him on legal issues.

State statutes allow authorities to request non-testimonial evidence, such as saliva, blood, and even voice and handwriting samples, providing the procedure is not too intrusive. Usually defendants comply.

But attorneys say they do not know of a time when a Connecticut

judge has authorized force to carry out such an order.

Arguments in the case were heard for months, with Carlow and Storey trying to stop the procedure, saying it violated Jones' constitutional rights. They also argued that taking blood was too intrusive and that the most the court could do if Jones refused the procedure was to find him in contempt of court, which carries a six-month prison sentence.

But in late February, Judge Thomas Corradino rejected Carlow and Storey's arguments that he could not authorize force, although he did say that taking a saliva sample would be too intrusive. Corradino then gave the state prosecutor permission to use force, if necessary, in taking Jones' blood and hair.

Other defense attorneys say the court went beyond its discretion.

"I've seen a lot of outrageous things," said John R. Williams, a defense attorney in New Haven. "I think this is abominable."

Steven Sellers, director of the appellate unit for the chief state's attorney's office, said the statute contains limits to protect individuals from unwarranted bodily seizures, although taking blood is clearly allowed within the statute.

"We all have a certain right to bodily integrity from seizures," and the more intrusive police become, the more basis they must show for the seizure, Sellers said.

For example, if authorities wanted to seize a slug from a suspect's body, the court might allow it if the slug was at the skin's surface, Sellers said. If the bullet was near the heart, Sellers said, the operation would be too risky and, therefore, more intrusive.